Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recusal And Legal Context topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioner Jennifer Explains Why She Declined Recusal in Land‑Use Appeal
Summary
Commissioner Jennifer read a memo saying she has no financial interest in a recent land‑use case now before the Connecticut Supreme Court and explained three procedural questions that led the court to accept the appeal; commissioners discussed conflict standards and town legal costs.
Commissioner Jennifer addressed a recent request that she recuse herself from matters related to an ongoing land‑use appeal and read a memorandum explaining her decision at the March 24 Charter Revision Commission meeting.
Jennifer told colleagues she had been asked to recuse but, after consulting counsel, declined. She said she and her husband have "no financial interest in the underlying land use litigation," that they have not sought damages from the town, and that the litigation has been a cost, not a benefit, to them.
She identified three procedural questions the Connecticut Supreme Court accepted in the matter: whether a judge may remand a case to one agency directing that agency to consult with another for additional fact‑finding after the record is closed; whether parties have the opportunity to respond and present rebuttal evidence when the record is reopened; and whether newly seated commissioners in 2023 had a complete record sufficient to make an informed decision. She also said there were no active matters before the Planning & Zoning Commission or ZBA currently related to the appeal.
Commissioners discussed the standard for conflicts of interest. The chair clarified that the legal standard refers to "financial interest" rather than merely financial benefit and noted the town is incurring legal costs related to the matter, which he estimated at about $22,000 with more than half of that in 2025. Other commissioners added context about timing and the need for commissioners to exercise judgment about recusal for particular interviews or votes.
Jennifer concluded by urging the commission to focus on the charter work ahead. The commission accepted the memo for the public packet and moved on to other agenda items.
Next steps: The memo will be included in the public packet; commissioners requested clarifications on conflict procedures and will proceed with the charter review schedule that includes a draft report to the town council on May 4.
